[Relativity FAQ] - [Copyright]
original by Siegmar Schleif 17-Jan-1998
Physics, as a natural science, is based on empirical facts. Physical theories cannot be based just on speculation or suspicion. On the other hand it is always reasonable to have doubts concerning established theories. Reading the posts in sci.physics.relativity I have got the impression, that the huge experimental support for this theory is sometimes not well known. The list of experiments below shows that the SRT is really tested very well. Hypotheses which claim, that SRT is just "wrong" have to show that all the experiments mentioned below had errors or that their interpretation is not correct.
There is a lot of redundancy in these experimental tests. There are also a lot of indirect tests of SRT which are not included in the list shown below. This list of experiments is NOT complete! I cannot guarantee, that the literature list has no mistakes. If I get a positive feedback, I am willing to update the list shown below and to correct all possible errors.
For those seriously concerned about this subject there is an essential new reference book: "Special Relativity and its Experimental Foundation" by Yuan Zhong Zhang, World Scientific (1996).
The Special Theory of Relativity (SRT) is a theory which was invented to explain several experimental results. SRT is NOT a mathematical game or just a hypothesis. SRT is a theory which has been well tested several times.
When A. Einstein wrote his famous paper: "The Electrodynamics of
Moving Bodies" he already had experimental support for the new
theory:
".... Examples of this sort, together with
the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion
of the Earth relatively to the
"light medium" suggest that the phenomena of
electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties
corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather
that, as has already been shown to the first order of
small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and
optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the
equations of mechanics hold good..."
What was the experimental support for this claim?
1. There were several experiments concerning the electrodynamics of moving bodies, which are not very well known today, but Einstein knew this experiments:
2. In addition there were two experiments concerning the effect of the motion of the Earth concerning the double refraction:
3.Important experiments which influenced Einstein were the experiments of Arago, Fizeau and Hoek. This experiments alone set very stringent constrains to several ether theories, which was shown by Lorentz in 1885.
Robertson has shown in 1949 ( Review of Modern Physics 21, p. 378) that one can unambiguously deduce SRT with the following three experiments
These experiments are described in nearly every basic physics book about the Special Theory of Relativity:
MMX : A.A. Michelson and E.W. Morley, On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether Am. J.Sci. (3rd series) 34 333-345 (1887).
Discussion of the MMX experiment, the Fizeau experiment and the repetition of the Fizeau experiment by Michelson and Morley is given in: Shankland, American Journal of Physics 1964, p.16
KTX: R.J. Kennedy and E.M. Thorndike, Experimental Establishment of the Relativity of Time Phys. Rev. 42 400-418 (1932)
Name | Year | Arm length of the interferometer | Fringe shift expected | Fringe shift measured |
---|---|---|---|---|
Michelson | 1881 | 1.2 | 0.04 | 0.02 |
Michelson + Morley | 1887 | 11.0 | 0.4 | 0.01 |
Morley + Morley | 1902-04 | 32.2 | 1.13 | 0.015 |
Miller | 1921 | 32.0 | 1.12 | 0.08 |
Miller | 1923-24 | 32.0 | 1.12 | 0.03 |
Miller (Sunlight) | 1924 | 32.0 | 1.12 | 0.014 |
Tomascheck (Starlight) | 1924 | 8.6 | 0.3 | 0.02 |
Miller | 1925-26 | 32.0 | 1.12 | 0.088 |
Kennedy (Mt. Wilson) | 1926 | 2.0 | 0.07 | 0.002 |
Ilingworth | 1927 | 2.0 | 0.07 | 0.0002 |
Piccard + Stahel(Mt.Rigi) | 1927 | 2.8 | 0.13 | 0.006 |
Michelson et al. | 1929 | 25.9 | 0.9 | 0.01 |
Joos | 1930 | 21.0 | 0.75 | 0.002 |
Chase, Physical Review 28, p. 378 (1926)
Summary article in Review of Modern Physics Vol 39, p. 475 (1962)
Hils and Hall, Physics Review Letter 64, p. 1697
Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, vol 15, part 2, p.1297-1298 (1913) This experiment was criticized by Zrelov, Tiapkin, Farago Soviet Physics JETP, Vol.34, p.384 (1958) Description and Outline of experiments for education : Four experimental types can be distinguished: Prediction means: Sum of GR effect + SR effect Calorimetric test of special relativity: Test of special relativity by a determination of the Lorentz limiting
velocity: Other experiments which show the limiting velocity c with
Neutrinos: g-2 experiments as a test of special relativity:VII. Speed of Light independent of the velocity of the source:
and
Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, vol 16, part 1, p.395 - 396 (1913)
written by de Sitter
It is not difficult to get these papers. They are available via WWW:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/eric_baird/p_sitt01.htm
J.G. Fox Am. Journal of Physics 30,297 (1962);
33, 1 (1964)Experiments:
VIII. Isotropy of Space: Hughes Drever Experiments ( very accurate, best test!)
IX. Isotropy of the Speed of Light:
and Physics Review D Vol 9, p. 2489 (1974)
X. Relativistic Mass-Momentum Relation:
Electrons:
There were several discussions about the conclusions from
Kaufmann's experiments and his data analysis.
This was discussed in references 3 and 4 by M.Planck:
A. Bucherer, "Die experimentelle Bestatigung des
Relativitatsprinzips", Annalen der Physik, 28, 1909.
Protons:
W. Bertozzi, Am. J. Phys. 32, 551 (1964) XI. Transversal Doppler effect:
An Experimental Study of the Rate of a Moving Atomic Clock. II
J. Opt. Soc. Am. 31 369-374 (1941)
XII. Time Dilatation, Clock "paradox":
A: One way experiments:
Rossi and Hall, Physical Review 59, p. 223 (1941)
Lifetime measured at rest :
Rasetti, Physical Review 60, p. 198 (1941)
(first historical experiments)
A good interpretation was given by :
Terell, Nuovo Cimento 16 (1960) p. 457
B: Experiment using the Moessbauer effect:
Pound Rebka, Physics Review Letters 4, p. 274
Theoretical interpretation:
Josephson, Physics Review Letters 4, p. 341
C: Round trip experiments using elementary particles:
Farley et al., Nuovo Cimento Vol 45, p. 281 (1966)
together with Farley et al., Nature 217, p. 17 (1968),
Nuovo Cimento 9A, p. 369 (1972)
More details about this experiment can be found in:
Nuclear Physics B 150 p.1-79 (1979)
Measurement of the Muon lifetime at rest:
Meyer et al., Physical Review 132, p. 2693
Balandin et al. JETP 40, p. 811 (1974)
Bardin et al. Physics Letters 137B, p. 135 (1984)
D: Experiments with macroscopic clocks:
Vessot, R.F.C et.al., 1980,
"Test of Relativistic Gravitation with a Space borne Hydrogen Maser"
Phys. Rev. Lett. 45 2081-2084.
Proposal: J. Haefele, Nature 227 (1970), p. 270
Experiment: Science Vol. 177 p. 166 - 170 (1972)
Here are the numbers from the Haefele-Keating experiment:
DELTA T in nanoseconds
Eastward Westward
Clock 120 -57 277
Clock 361 -74 284
Clock 408 -55 266
Clock 447 -51 266
Predicted -40 +/-23 275 +/-21
With their "fit method" ( taking into account the clock drifts) H&K get:
East : -66 nsec West : 205 nsec
This agrees well with the average values ( second method) of
East : -59 +/- 10 nsec West : 273 +/- 7 nsec
"Proper Time Experiments in Gravitational Fields with
Atomic Clocks, Aircraft, and Laser Light Pulses," in Quantum Optics,
Experimental Gravity, and Measurement Theory, eds. Pierre Meystre and
Marlan O. Scully,
Proceedings Conf. Bad Windsheim 1981,
1983 Plenum Press New York,
ISBN 0-306-41354-X
XIII. Some other Experiments
D.R. Walz, H.P. Noyes and R.L. Carezani, Physical Review A29 (1984), p. 2110
Does E=mc2?
G.L. Greene et al., Physical Review D 44 (1991) R2216
using Neutrinos from the Supernova SN 1987A
ALSPECTOR, Physics Review Letters 36, p.837 (1976)
Kalbfleisch et al., Physics Review Letters 43, p.1361 (1979)